Topic on VisualEditor/Feedback

Better Tagging: Shortcuts to add common templates asking for improvement (proofreading templates)

6
Lyuflamb (talkcontribs)

Although Visual Editor is a huge step in user experience for Wikipedia, it only benefits authors, or at least conceptually so. Most readers who only need introductory information have little to no incentive to engage in editing. But these are people Wikipedia should rely on in finding minor bugs, spelling errors, missing citations, etc., in general proofreading. But current barrier on proofreading is still too high for general public to participate.

The current minimum steps for a Wikipedia reader with no editing experience to add a "citation needed" template to a sentence are the following:

1. Know the template system
If registered:
2. Open Visual Editor
else:
2. Search for template:citation needed
3. Insert the template

The first step is the biggest barrier under the assumption.

My ideal proofreading mechanism is proofreading as reading. I want to select any part of the content and choose from a list of proofreading templates right away. Such UX can also serve to teach readers that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, and to cultivate their habit of critical reading.

Nnemo (talkcontribs)

This is a good idea. It would help the general improving of the articles.

John Broughton (talkcontribs)

It's not at all clear that having novice editors apply templates to articles is a good idea, let alone a high priority. For example, the documentation page for the citation needed template has a large section titled "When not to use this template"; novice editors can't be expected to read (or fully understand) all the documentation pages for all possible templates.

Which raises a more general issue: How many different templates could be applied when doing proofreading? If you take a look at this page, you'll see dozens and dozens of possible templates, and those are just for "cleanup". Do we really want to show all these templates to a novice, and expect him/her to understand which one to use? How would we do that in a compact way, since the full page is so lengthy?

Personally, I'd rather novice editors work on wording, and adding information, and adding citations. We already have plenty of templates in Wikipedia articles, in my opinion.

Lyuflamb (talkcontribs)

I totally agree with you, but I am not talking about novice editors here. If we can have a common ground, I propose we define novice editors as people who are interested in editing, but are without experience (such as myself). Whereas I aim this feature to those who "have little to no incentive to engage in editing".

It is indeed important that we do not show "all these templates to a novice". But that is what we are already doing, thus this underwhelming proofreading experience. What I expect is a case-by-case evaluation on the limited several templates regarding proofreading in the lightest sense, and surely with limited options, or even with only a fixed default. The "When not to use this template" section can be summarized into a plug-in reminder shown to the users of this feature.

I accept your advice to novice editors. I want more readers to become novice editors, but I see a gap between them that is currently bridged only by enthusiasm. Such is my intention to introduce "proofreader" as an intermediate role, to ease the transition, and to remind our readers not to take Wikipedia for granted.

John Broughton (talkcontribs)

Perhaps we're talking about different things. Can you please provide a list/links of three or four templates that an editor would use when doing proofreading? I ask because I've done lots of proofreading/copyediting myself, and I don't apply templates, at all - I just fix the problems I find.

I will say that if you're talking about templates like "This article needs more inline citations" or "Needs citation" (at the end of sentence), then I very strongly disagree with you that Wikipedia needs more of these templates. For example, there are literally millions of articles that need more inline citations, in just the English Wikipedia; if someone spends hundreds of hours adding this template to articles, then (a) he/she will not have used that time to actually add anything of value to readers (that is, citations), and (b) he/she will have increased the probability of someone else adding citations by about ZERO percent. In other words, wasted time.

Lyuflamb (talkcontribs)

I am talking exactly about "Needs citation" at the end of sentences. The general "This article needs more inline citations" is better off left to experienced editors who can really judge that. I'd probably limit the selection within the "Inline cleanup templates", and come up with a set of seven to ten that's both easy to understand and cover a reasonable ground. Try a situation like this:

"I am looking for some material in Wikipedia for my homework today. Oh hey, this sentence is different from what I've learned, but no citation to prove it. I have to finish my homework first, but I better flag it. But how?"

I believe that's how a lot of people use Wikipedia, get interested in changing its contents for the first time, and Bam! right into a brick wall.

I have to disagree with you on the value of these tags. I feel that your (b) is counter-intuitive. Even if it is true, I think a more complete image of how many citations are missing is better than leaving them unmarked.

On your (a), I think the tags offer value already in prompting critical thinking. The problem you are worried about is that currently adding these templates takes time from actually improving contents. I'd like to point out that more often than not, not adding the templates does not mean the time would go to improving contents. It most likely goes to the homework.

Reply to "Better Tagging: Shortcuts to add common templates asking for improvement (proofreading templates)"